The atmospheric work of Dutch portrait and genre painter Godfried Schalcken provided the inspiration for Sheridan Le Fanu's Gothic horror story "Strange Event in the Life of Schalken the Painter" written in 1839.I must say that I rather enjoyed Leslie Mehagey's "Schalcken the Painter" which is based on Le Fanu story.The film plays like a documentary and it carefully recreates the interiors made famous by the Dutch painters.The action is slow-moving,but "Schalcken the Painter" has plenty of Gothic atmosphere.There is also plenty of female nudity including nice full-frontal at the end.The climax is wonderfully evocative and eerie.If you like "The Woman in Black" or similar subtle British chillers you can't go wrong with "Schalcken the Painter".7 skulls out of 10.

Godfried Schalcken was a 17th Century Dutch painter who studied under Gerard (Gerrit) Dou, himself a former student of Rembrandt. Schalcken, like Dou, specialized in both portraits and dark, atmospheric visions lit solely by candlelight; many of which take on an eerie or sinister quality. Inspired by the work of Schalcken, Sheridan Le Fanu wrote a Gothic horror story entitled "Strange Event in the Life of Schalken the Painter" in 1839, which was in turn made into a British TV movie that debuted on BBC around Christmastime in 1979 and has since fallen into obscurity. And that's really too bad, because this is a very good film that actually succeeds at being three separate things at once. For starters, it's a respectable, eerie and fairly faithful adaptation of Le Fanu's story. Secondly, it manages to accurately capture the flavor of the era in which it takes place. Finally, and most impressively, it manages to capture the dark beauty of Schalcken's artwork. Nearly every frame of this film seems to be a painting in and of itself, and done in reverence to the shadowy world Schalcken created in his paintings. Most of the shots are very carefully set and lit, with soft candlelight illuminating the action in the middle of the screen yet leaving the edges of the frame shrouded in shadow.The story begins with Schalcken's (Jeremy Clyde) arrival at Dou's (Maurice Denham) Leiden studio as an impoverished young artist just as he's making the transition from sketches to oil paintings. Schalcken falls in love with Dou's niece Rose (Cheryl Kennedy), but Dou has already promised her hand in marriage to the wealthy, mysterious corpse-like Vanderhausen (John Justin) in exchange for some gold. Schalcken promises the terrified Rose that he'll one day become successful enough to buy her back, but has to let her go for the time being. He then becomes so immersed in his work and visits a local brothel, that by the time he does actually have fame and money, he finds he may be too late to save his former love from her ghastly suitor. The film doesn't even bother to define the Vanderhausen character in clichéd horror terms. You're never quite sure what he is (a vampire... a demon lover... a sadistic old man...?) or what he's done to Rose. That is up to us to decide, and the film is all the better for allowing us to use our imaginations to fill in the blanks.I'm sure that many of today's film-goers will find this too slow-moving or "boring" for their tastes since there's no graphic violence and it relies on mood, lighting, ambiguity and art direction to create an uneasy and creepy atmosphere. However, fans of atmospheric, deliberately-paced ghost tales, as well as art connoisseurs, will find a lot to like here. Charles Gray narrates as "The Voice of Lefanu."

This was not one of the BBC's 'Ghost Stories for Christmas' (it was broadcast as part of the 'Omnibus' series), but it could easily have been one as it had the necessary eeriness and unforgettable imagery of those wonderful mid-70's adaptations.In fact this was an hour's worth of art history combined with J. Sheridan leFanu's short story 'A Strange Event in the Life of Schalcken the Painter'. It doesn't stick exactly to the story (not a criticism) but chooses to spend additional time on Schalcken's work as a painter. The background imagery is reminiscent of Vermeer's work and I'm sure I saw a Rembrandt double in there someone. In short, it is beautiful to look at and yet retains the necessary darkness of the original story.One of the things that struck me about this after all these years is quite how little dialogue there was, and yet this this seems to enhance the piece rather than detract from it. The cast are excellent, particularly Jeremy Clyde as the laconic and moody painter, and the beautiful Cheryl Kennedy (whatever happened to her?) as Rose Velderkaust. Who can forget that final scene in the crypt? I bet John Justin didn't.Criticisms? This may be a bit harsh on a wonderful piece of work that only the BBC seemed capable of producing, but I thought that Vanderhausen wasn't nearly as scary as in the story. In the book, we read of a white faced, black lipped, cadaverous figure whose stilted movements are reminiscent of a "spirit unused to the management of bodily machinery". By the lack of both blinking and evident chest movements indicating breathing, we know Vanderhausen is clearly an animated corpse. In the film, we get a dark-skinned staring madman whose mortality is never questioned, and this, while creepy, lessens the ending which should have been terrifying and ended up as merely disturbing (boy, am I difficult to please).All in all, fabulous. Please BBC, make this available on DVD. This is one of the best things you've ever done. Be proud of it.

I saw this film in 1979 and I never forgot it. The way the scenes are set up after old master paintings. In one scene Rembrandt appears briefly at the door inwonderful chiaroscuro. The whole film seemed like one moving masterpainting. The horror is the better for being implied as in The turn of the Screw. It is a pity that filmmakers like this are so little known.I would pay over the odds to get this on DVD. Filmmaking this excellent doesn't happen often enough. I totally agree withother comments.